Private Military Companies – A Positive Role to Play inToday’s International System
Ian D. Jefferies1
The end of the Cold War and the following transition into the post-Cold War era
has proved to be a truly catalytic period. It has fostered change, revision, and reemphasis, birth and death. But the darkest force in the affairs of men and statesremains essentially unchanged, as forceful, dark, and bloody as at any time inmodern history. I refer to war, to armed conflict within states and between states –civil war and war fought across national boundaries. War in all its manifestations,
including pre- and post-conflict challenges, is still very much a significant andenduring feature of the international system. And armed conflict is not the only
security issue chafing at the flesh of international society. We face the destructive
problems posed by a broad and varied range of humanitarian, environmental, andhuman security issues.
The focus of this paper is on a very particular – and relatively new – player
in the field of international relations, and more particularly, but not exclusively,in the field of armed conflict. This is the private military company (PMC). The
question I address is, can the PMC play a positive role in today’s international
system? Can PMCs contribute and make a difference in situations where tension
exists inside a state, or between states, in conditions where factors progressively
ripen towards conflict; in situations where the fragility of peace has shattered into“hot” armed conflict; in post-conflict phases, including aspects of Peace Support
Operations; and in other more subtle human security scenarios that are no lessimportant to the quality of international and domestic life? The bulk of this paper
will concentrate on conflict-related issues and the relevancy of PMCs to these, but
I will conclude by speculating that PMCs have the potential to diversify into, andbe successful players in, a much broader spectrum of “soft” security issues.
Why should we be concerned with PMCs? I will contend that, even thoughexternal, non-indigenous players in armed conflict are by no means new, the postCold War landscape is different. It contains factors that have evolved to create
spaces for PMCs to operate in, and a demand, I will argue, for a presence that
PMCs can (sometimes uniquely) satisfy. I will argue that without the involvementof PMCs we may be faced with less control over armed conflict, an increasing
tendency for armed conflicts to drag on unresolved, creating more misery andmayhem, and inefficient and inappropriate post-conflict activity that may lead at
1

Ian Jefferies was a student at the 16th International Training Course (ended June 2002), Geneva
Centre for Security Policy, Switzerland.

103

T HE Q UARTERLY J OURNAL

a later date to a resurgence in fighting, as old tensions reassert themselves. I willargue that PMCs can be a significant positive force for peace and stability.
I will spend some time going over the background for this paper, carefully
isolating and identifying the actors that I will (and will not) be dealing with.
This is important. I will preface the body of my argument by drawing an important line between what PMCs are and what they are not, and I wish to make thepoint now that PMCs are not “mercenary” bodies. This is a vital distinction. I willshow that their structure, the relationship they have with legitimate governmentorgans, and the way they conduct their activities can help make them responsible, responsive, professional, but above all legitimate and legal actors. I will put
forward the major fears and reservations that some observers and commentators
have towards PMCs, and demonstrate that these, while being worthy of debate, arelargely unwarranted. I will then outline the various situations and arenas within
which PMCs can contribute positively to international stability, before drawing
together some conclusions.
Players and Non-Players
This paper is not about mercenaries and it is not about Private Security Companies (PSCs). A clear understanding of what a mercenary is, and how and why heoperates, is much more than an issue of definition. The noun “mercenary” is intrinsically, in modern parlance, a pejorative term. It is used loosely but extensively
to propagandize the issue of PMC operations. It obscures any positive role PMCs
can play and, as such, constricts and constrains any meaningful and objective debate on the issue before it begins. This is completely unhelpful.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines a mercenary as “a hired soldier in foreign service.” Military history abounds with examples of this sort of mercenary
activity. In fact, the realities of pre-modern warfare demanded the existence of
trained and skilled fighting men in order to offset the inefficiency of feudal practices of raising armies, which relied on pressing peasants and artisans into service.
These trained and skilled fighters were very often mercenaries able to employ sophisticated tactics utilizing effective and, in their historical context, sophisticatedweaponry. Mercenary soldiers fought on contract, or “condatto,” clearly detailing whom they would be fighting, what weaponry they were to fight with, thelength of term of the engagement, and the conditions of service. The contract was
drawn up and regulated by the hiring state or sovereign. This reality, universallyunquestioned and regarded as both a norm and as wholly legitimate, lasted into
the late-eighteenth century as a major means by which wars were fought.
The post-World War II era saw a resurgence of the employment and deployment of foreign contract, or mercenary, soldiers, and with this resurgence, helpfully, came a clear definition in Article 47 to Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conven104

N O .4, D ECEMBER 02

tions.2 Mercenary soldiers have historically prospered in times of unstable conditions or following changes in the existing order. This was the case in the employment of mercenaries in the Belgian Congo and in Angola in particular, inthe breakaway Nigerian province of Biafra, and since then in Zaire, Chechnya,
Colombia, Congo (Brazzaville), Eritrea, Kashmir, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Ethiopia,
and in the Comoros Islands, the Seychelles, Benin, Armenia-Azerbaijan, Georgia, Tajikistan, Moldova, and latterly in Afghanistan and the former Yugoslavia.3
Some of these examples have served to give us the enduring and wholly negative view of mercenaries that has since populated conventional wisdom, and thatis cited purposefully, but indiscriminately, regarding PMCs today by those whowish to diminish their credibility and put them out of business. Hence the mercenary is viewed as the “freelance soldier of no fixed abode or loyalty, ruthless,undertaking short contracts for large amounts of money,” and names like Hoare,
Denard, Schramme, Muller, Falques, Tavernier, and “Callan” conjure up disreputable, brutal images.4
Yet it is important to note for the sake of balance that pure mercenary activity continues today in situations that go largely unnoticed and unreported. The
existence of the enlisted elements of the French Foreign Legion (since 1831),
the Swiss Guard in the Vatican, the Ghurkha units in both the Indian and British
armies (since 1816 and 1947 respectively), troops in the British Army who havebeen recruited in Commonwealth countries, and those officers and men detachedfrom the British Army on contract or “loan service” work mainly in the Middle
East, are all incarnations of contemporary mercenaries.
But the question of definition is more than semantic. There is a lack of clarity
and a degree of confusion over the identity of PMCs. I do not intend to belabor the
point, but time spent on elucidation will not be wasted. So, before I concentrate on
dissecting the heart of today’s PMC, let me look briefly at the existence of PSCs,
erroneously confused with PMCs, with the goal of excluding their activities fromthis paper.
Superficially, a private security company and a private military company bearsome similarities. They will invariably recruit from a similar manpower pool,
namely ex-military specialists who have particular experience and skills, in thecase of PSCs in physical protection. They are both corporate bodies outside of
the public sector that seek, like any other business enterprise, to make a profit
from contracts won in the marketplace. And they are usually active in developing
and Third World countries within which such expertise rarely exists. But here the21977, cited in David Shearer, “Private Armies and Military Intervention,” Adelphi Paper 316(Institute for Security Studies, Oxford, 1998), 16.
3“Report on the Question of the Use of Mercenaries as a Means of Violating Human Rights ofPeoples to Self-determination,” United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 1997.
4Peter Tickler, The Modern Mercenary, Dog of War, or Soldier of Honour? (Wellingborough:Patrick Stephens, 1987).

105

T HE Q UARTERLY J OURNAL

similarities end. Unlike PMCs, PSCs are not ostensibly political actors; they are
economic players, although the line between the two concepts admittedly can bea thin one. PMCs work predominantly for governments; PSCs are almost exclusively contracted to the private sector. PSCs will often seek to provide the contracting business with a risk assessment advising on the security aspects of a potential
investment, and they will provide a range of security services linked to the physical protection of business enterprises, whether they are extraction, processing, ormanufacturing facilities. This can entail the physical guarding of perimeters andinfrastructure, or the provision of security surveys and security management. The
milieu of the PSC is traditionally mineral mining and oil extraction, and muchof the geographic focus is in Saharan and sub-Saharan Africa. Some of the big
names in a large and geographically diverse pool include Defence Systems Ltd,
Sterling, Lifeguard Security, Group 4, Rapport, Grays Security, Securicor, Controlled Risks, Kroll, Coin, CRG, and Saladin.
The PMC is a newer entity on the international scene; the first recorded PMC
was registered in 1967, when Watchguard was created, primarily as a training
organization, by David Sterling, co-founder of the UK’s Special Air Service Regiment during World War II.5 Quoting Tim Spicer, former Director of Sandline International (and now director of Strategic Consulting International based in London), PMCs “offer practical military help in an acceptable form to legitimate governments.”6 The key element of this phrase lies in the last three words. PMCs work
under contracts drawn up with legally constituted governments – unlike the mercenary, they do not “do business” with simply anyone in the marketplace. Beyond
this, the trend is already apparent that PMCs may in the future work increasingly
with, and for, international institutions, for the UN, its agencies, or other legitimate humanitarian organizations. They are not for hire to the highest bidder, andbeyond this point they may well be acting with the tacit support of their own
national governments, as I will show. As such they can act as representatives ofnational policy, albeit usually in a clandestine or indirect way.
PMCs, predominantly of U.S. or British origin, are permanent structures. They
function and are structured along the lines of any other business entity. They have aclear hierarchy, including executives and boards of directors, a corporate identity,and shareholders who have the right to demand a degree of business transparency.
They can draw on the support of lawyers and accountants, they have permanent
offices, they produce promotional literature, and they behave in accordance with
their domestic commercial law; more importantly, however, as Tim Spicer states,
they operate in accordance with the “laws and customs of the host nation, andadherence to the principles of the Geneva Convention and the international law
5

Anthony Rogers, Someone Else’s War – Mercenaries from 1960 to the Present (London: Harper
Collins, 1998), 228.
6
Tim Spicer, An Unorthodox Soldier: Peace and War and the Sandline Affair (Edinburgh: Mainstream Publishing, 1999), 41.

106

N O .4, D ECEMBER 02

of armed conflict.”7 Their aim is to make money over the long term, which initself ensures that legitimacy and correctness are important factors underscoring
their conduct. To give some idea of the financial scale that PMCs represent, it isestimated that in 1995 Executive Outcomes (EO) had an annual income of $50
million, while at the other end of the spectrum the U.S.-based PMC BDM grossed$890 million.8
A PMC can be contracted to provide a whole range of services spanning
the spectrum from supplying personnel for logistical support through, in a minority of cases, armed action. Sitting comfortably in between these extremes,
taking as an example the structural organization of Sandline International, lie
the provision of support services (legal, commercial, public relations, and lobbying), command and control (command, control, communications, and intelligence), humanitarian support (convoy escorts, security for relief operations, protecting refugees, mine clearance), support of law and order (counter-terrorism,
anti-piracy, counter-narcotics, hostage negotiation and release), post-conflict resolution (disarming and integration of warring factions, election monitoring, refugee
support), training advice or practical packages, and arms procurement.9 The list ofservices provided by MPRI adds, in addition to those boasted by Sandline, force
design and management, simulation and war-gaming, quick reaction support, anddemocracy-transition-assistance programs.10 Contracting parties hire the PMC toprovide what they perceive they need, either as a single task or a multifaceted
package.
The cast of PMC actors is a growing one, but some of the significant ones
include Military Professional Resources Inc. (MPRI), BDM Corporation, Vinnell,
Sandline, Silver Shadow, Levdan, Compagnie Francaise d’Assistance Specialisée,International Defence and Security Ltd, Ghurkha Security Guards, Brown andRoot, Pacific Architects and Engineers, and Strategic Applications International.
Their industry is a large one in terms of both the number of corporate actors
and the scale of the revenues involved. Like any industry, it is based on competition, but this does not regulate and constrain the relations that PMCs have with one
another. There is also a considerable degree of linkage between companies. Sandline, in their abortive dealings with the government of Papua New Guinea, passed
some functional areas of their proposed operational plan on to EO.11 PMCs sharenot only similar corporate aims but also a professional ethos – they are largely
run and staffed by ex-military personnel. In the West, this ethos is founded on acommon NATO esprit, culture, and experience. There are links and relationships
7

Ibid.
Ibid., 45; Simon Sheppard, “The Rise of the Corporate Military” New Left Review (March/April
1998).
9
See www.sandline.com.
10
See www.mpri.com.
11
Spicer, Unorthodox Soldier.
8107

T HE Q UARTERLY J OURNAL

that, as in any army, generate co-operation rather than competition for competition’s sake. This means that in some of the areas I will speculate on as future fociof activity, PMCs will integrate more effectively, and work together more effectively, if and when they are serving international masters (under, for instance, aUN banner).
The Case Against PMCs: A Negative Role To Play
Background
Detractors of the role and utility of PMCs generally take their stand on liberal
turf and look into a world that to them appears murky, opaque, and unsettling.
For them, PMCs are modern mercenaries with a thin commercialized, corporate
veneer that serves as self-justificatory propaganda aimed at distorting the cynicalreality of their actions – exploiting war and misery for profit, as mercenaries havedone throughout history. They will cite the nature of companies like EO, which isprimarily composed of unapologetic ex-soldiers of the apartheid regime in South
Africa, who assembled forces in response to contracts on an ad hoc basis. Thisis very much contrary to the argument that PMCs are duly constituted corporate
bodies with a structure, workforce, and corporate ethos like the true business enterprises they seek to mirror. These detractors will always be of the mind that
PMCs represent everything bad for which those mercenaries involved the immediate post-colonial fighting in Africa are remembered.
Accountability
The criticism most often aimed at PMCs is against their claims of accountability.
Critics refute the contention of private companies that operating under a binding
contract ensures accountability. PMCs emphasize that they only work for recognized, legitimate governments, but there is little to stop them from supporting
rebel movements. The other side of the coin says that many governments now in
power in the developing world were once considered rebel groups. Slavishly conforming to the principle of only contracting their services to a recognized regime
could hold back the wave of reform and progress, and bolster weak governmentswith little popular support and perhaps highly dubious human rights records. The
current regimes in Uganda, Rwanda, and Ethiopia are now internationally recognized but were not so long ago branded as insurgents. If the critics of PMCs had
their way, these governments would not have been able to bolster their campaigns
with the support of PMCs, and as a consequence the less savory regimes they
replaced may have retained power longer than may have been necessary.
Human-Rights Abuses
Criticisms of accountability extend beyond the relationship to contracting governments and into the realms of international law human-rights abuses, which isa much-cited doubt about the conduct of PMCs. The UN Special Rapporteur on108

N O .4, D ECEMBER 02

mercenaries, Enrique Benales Ballesteros, spoke out strongly in January 1999 on
his perception of the linkage between PMCs and human rights abuses. But humanrights abuses are features of all conflicts, whether participating combatants are
regular soldiers of First World countries or Third World irregulars. There havebeen claims that British forces shot captured Argentine soldiers in the Falklands
War, and there are clearly documented cases of abuses by peacekeeping troops
in Somalia. These acts are comprehensively covered by the Geneva Conventions
and UN human-rights conventions. But do these frameworks extend to membersof PMCs operating abroad, and do they provide the necessary deterrent to regulate their behavior and, in cases where abuses occur, make the punishment of
perpetrators possible? Sandline and others argue that members of PMCs become
temporary members of the hiring state’s armed forces and are hence subject andaccountable to that state’s domestic law.12 Those members of Sandline operatingin Papua New Guinea were given the status of Special Constables, subordinate
to the police force of the islands.13 The weakness in this scenario becomes oneof verification. By the nature of their task, PMCs will largely operate in remoteplaces out of the public – and more particularly, the media – eye. But this is not
the fault of the PMCs. It is in their commercial interests to scrupulously observe
human rights issues and to select trained and professional personnel to fulfill contracts (whose knowledge and experience in these issues is likely to be superior
to those of the domestic soldiery), or else face intense adverse publicity that willseverely damage their reputations and diminish their acceptability as contractors.
The best way to neutralize critics who remain skeptical of PMCs’ accountability
is for these companies to make themselves as open and transparent as possible.
Tenuous Commitment
Criticism is leveled at PMCs because they are deemed to provide only short-term
stability in the theaters where they operate. They are engaged for a fixed period,
and when that time expires they withdraw; where there is doubt that the host government may be able to financially honor the contract, a PMC may withdraw early.
The practical consequence is that their departure may create a vacuum that can be
filled by renewed conflict against the backdrop of unresolved fundamental issues.
Just six months after EO’s departure from Sierra Leone, with the culmination of
their contract in January 1997 (terminated three months early) – an operation thatis widely credited, and not only within the country, with bringing about a cessation of hostilities and a return to civilian government – Koroma’s military coup
reimposed the old pattern of corruption and instability. His AFRC regime shared
power with the very group, the RUF, that EO had militarily dragged to the negotiating table. EO was unable to create the conditions for genuine political progress,
12

Damian Lilly, “The Privatisation of Security and Peacebuilding: A Framework for Action,” International Alert (2000), 12.
13
Sheppard, “Rise of the Corporate Military.”109

T HE Q UARTERLY J OURNAL

and Sierra Leone slipped back into bloody chaos. PMCs do not address, let alone
improve, those social, economic, and political factors that precipitate conflict in
the first place, but this is not what they are designed or hired to do. Furthermore, it
can be argued that PMCs have no incentive to produce a quick solution, since they
then would become redundant. And there may be the reverse pressure to prolong
a situation in order to increase revenue from the contracting government.
Irresponsibility
PMCs are accused of breaching arms embargoes and weapon sanctions, circumventing arms export controls, and brokering and trafficking in arms in conflictareas in a graphic “Arms to Africa” style. When they leave a country, they may
leave behind surplus hardware that can then be used to fuel additional violence.
The legacy of MPRI’s Train and Equip program in Bosnia-Herzegovina may yet
prove to be a destabilizing factor in the region, with a Bosnian army reconstructedwith a quantifiable offensive capability and an increased quantity of weaponry
able to inflict greater numbers of casualties.
Destabilizing
PMCs may act as destabilizing factors, cutting across, and acting outside of, theirnational governments’ policy parameters. Sandline was accused of this in Sierra
Leone and was cited as tarnishing the image of the UK Labor Government’s “ethical foreign policy.” However, the close relationships between some PMCs, particularly American groups, and their governments suggest that they can engage inactivities wholly consistent with official policy and goals.
Conflicts of Interest
The last of the detractors’ main areas of concern regarding the activities of PMCs
centers on some companies that have links to mining and drilling companies.
These companies are sometimes accused of illegally extracting resources, especially diamonds and oil; close corporate links between them and PMCs provide
the physical protection that these operations require. The intervention of EO inboth Angola and Sierra Leone can be argued as having been commissioned withscant regard to goals of bolstering stability and defeating enemies of the state instead of recapturing and securing oil and mineral deposits for the ruling elites.14
The moral offense caused is intensified because, in countries like Angola andSierra Leone, these very commodities have been at the heart of their conflicts.
14

Doug Brooks, “Creating the Renaissance Peace: The Utilisation of PMCs in Africa,” Africa
Institute, 1 June 2000.

110

N O .4, D ECEMBER 02

The Case For PMCs: A Positive Role To Play
Background
The reality of the contemporary international scene has brought about the emergence of two complimentary factors: the collapse of the bipolar model and aconcomitant reluctance to commit troops to overseas action. With the end of theCold War, the fact of two superpowers with two geographic spheres of influence,and two competing ideological imperatives to intervene in insurrections in former
client states, is no longer valid. Following unsuccessful interventions in Rwanda,
Liberia, and Somalia, Western governments are increasingly reluctant to deploy
national forces into situations that have little direct relevance to their strategic interests, or where the risks of involvement are unacceptably high. Certainly prior
to the Al Qaeda assaults on the U.S. in September 2001 (and perhaps still intrinsically apposite), Western states bore a paranoia about suffering casualties to troops
deployed abroad. The U.S. was indelibly scarred by the deaths of 241 Marines
killed in Beirut, the victims of an Islamic suicide bomber (as were the Frenchin similar circumstances), and by deaths of U.S. Army Rangers on the streets ofMogadishu and the graphic media aftermath of their corpses being publicly mutilated. For their part, Belgian confidence took a severe knock when, in Rwanda,
they had a dozen peacekeepers butchered in cold blood, to be followed by somber
televised funerals.
Filling the Security Vacuum
The consequence of these two factors has been the creation of a partial security
vacuum. The reaction to any lessening of pressure in a body is the movementof mass to equalize the pressure. That mass has been the PMC. I will cite three
clear examples where the reluctance of states to intervene on behalf of legitimate
governments threatened by insurgent activity has led these states to contract PMCs
as agents of last resort.
On two occasions, the legitimate dos Santos MPLA government of Angola
called on South African-based EO (the company dissolved itself in 1998) to aid
it against the highly competent and ruthless forces of the late Dr. Jonas Savimbi’s
UNITA. The civil war in Angola, essentially fomented and fuelled as a proxy
war of the Cold War rivalry, was characterized by its longevity and brutality, withthe civilian population bearing the brunt as government and rebel forces oscillated backwards and forwards across the country. When the cease-fire failed after
the government claimed victory in the 1993 elections, UNITA quickly captured
over 80% of the country, including the on-shore Soya oil fields being exploitedby a number of Western oil companies. Despite this, the international community turned its head and did nothing to support the MPLA government. EO wascontracted and quickly recaptured the oil fields. Later that year, they accepted asecond contract, worth $40 million, to train five thousand troops and thirty pilots
111

T HE Q UARTERLY J OURNAL

to spearhead government operations.15 EO put five hundred of its own employees
into Angola, in a training, advisory, and, on occasion, combat role.16 By 1996,
EO’s involvement had demonstrably reversed the tide, most notably with the recapture of the Lunda Norte diamond fields, and UNITA were forced to the negotiating table. From this break in the rhythm of war, the Lusaka Peace Accord washatched, and the civil war, though still not conclusively over today, has increasingly turned against, and marginalized, UNITA. This is unlikely to have happened
against the background of international inaction and apathy without the existence
and direct input of a PMC.
A second example highlights EO’s contract with the government of Sierra
Leone. By May 1995, the rebel RUF had successfully pushed to within 30 kmof the capital and was already in control of mines producing over 60% of thecountry’s export revenue. In addition, the strategic alluvial diamond belt in andaround Kono had already fallen into RUF hands. In common with other developing nations’ armed forces, the army of Sierra Leone, massively enlarged to fightthe RUF, had become progressively poorly trained, poorly disciplined, and – since
they were often unpaid – progressively criminal, representing a part of the problem instead of a part of the solution. EO was contracted to accomplish four major objectives: protect Freetown, the capital; retake captured mines and diamondfields; liberate areas under RUF occupation; and destroy the RUF’s headquarters.17 From mid-1995 until January 1996, EO provided first the training of Sierra
Leonean forces, then the leadership, and then active participation in operations
that successfully secured Freetown, recaptured vital diamond and rutile deposits,
and routed RUF fighters to the extent that the rebel leadership sought negotiation
with the government.18 Subsequent elections established a new civilian regime,
under the leadership of President Kabbah, which has survived to this day.
Foday Sankoh, then leader of the RUF, stated categorically that it was theintervention of EO on the government side that had prevented his rebels fromtaking Freetown and winning the civil war.19 It was only the military effectivenessof EO’s operations that forced the RUF to negotiate and concede to elections, and
it is only these elections that have secured legitimate and enduring civilian rule inthis benighted country.
When Sandline was approached and subsequently employed by the government of Papua New Guinea in 1996, a separatist war had been raging on the remote island of Bougainville, part of the North Solomon group, since 1989. The in15

UK House of Commons, Private Military Companies: Options for Regulation (London: The
Stationary Office, 2002), 11.
16
Shearer, “Private Armies,” 46.
17
Ibid., 49.
18
Rogers, Someone Else’s War, 229.
19
Jim Hooper, “Peace in Sierra Leone: A Temporary Outcome,” Janes Intelligence Review 9:2(1997).

112

N O .4, D ECEMBER 02

surrection had by this stage claimed over 10,000 lives and had effectively reduced
Papua New Guinea’s national GDP by 45% due to the enforced closure of copper
mines on the island.20 Papua New Guinea had close economic and cultural ties
with Australia; both are Commonwealth members, and the latter sees the former
as lying within its geopolitical sphere of interest, yet Australia had done nothing to
aid the legitimate government of the country. Conversely, it had actually blocked
the sale of helicopters that the Papua New Guinea Ministry of Defense perceived
would be force multipliers in its anti-insurgent campaign.21 Sandline procured helicopters, pilots and ground crew, and ammunition and weaponry for the government and, as part of a wider operation that the company conducted, analyzed how
the war could be militarily won, or how the BRA rebels brought to peace negotiations. They then commenced on a training package for the Papua New Guinea
Army and Special Forces. In the final analysis, Sandline’s involvement came tonaught. Australian government opposition to the company’s involvement and acoup mounted by the Papua New Guinea army scuttled the operation. Had it goneahead as conceived by Sandline and the government, PMC involvement stood agood chance of successfully bringing a pause, if not resolution, to the conflict. As
a result, the attention of the international community was focused on the islands,
and the government of New Zealand successfully brokered a peace deal.
Where external governments may fear to tread, PMCs can operate effectively
and react quickly. Prior to its demise, EO boasted of its ability to be able to deploy personnel anywhere in the world within 72 hours.22 They do not have tonavigate constitutional bottlenecks that might more effectively serve inertia rather
than flexible, prompt reaction, and that may even, remorselessly, make action impossible. The issue of casualties is not nearly of as much concern to PMCs as it
is to the families of regular or conscripted troops deployed as part of their government’s foreign policy, who may then choose to vent their grief when next theystand in front of a ballot box. PMCs can put together the appropriate force structure, employing personnel with the right level of experience, and they have theflexibility and the financial resources to scale their forces with the best and mostappropriate equipment. This is a luxury not always open to national armies, towhom the post-Cold War “peace dividend” has brought troop shortages, problemsof retention and resultant capability gaps, and sheer force overload as commitments continue to outweigh resources. And the example of EO’s involvement in
Sierra Leone argues that there can be an economic advantage to PMCs coming to
the rescue of governments in peril. The company’s bill was not cheap. The government of Sierra Leone paid EO $35 million, yet this represented only 30% of
the total expenditure on government operations against the RUF, and must be bal20

Spicer, Unorthodox Soldier, 154.
Ibid., 155.
22
Shearer, “Private Armies,” 55.
21

113

T HE Q UARTERLY J OURNAL

anced against a planned estimate of $47 million for the aborted UN observer mission that was to replace the EO presence. The estimated annual running costs of
UNAMSIL were put at $520 million by Francis Okelo, the UN Special Representative in Sierra Leone.23 These figures paint a graphic picture. The UN operation
cost the international community over 25 times as much as a private response by a
PMC. Any calculation of the relative efficiency and contribution of the two forces
to a secure Sierra Leone can only be speculative. But the UNAMSIL experienceis far from golden.
Instruments of Government
PMCs can – and, I will argue, do – promote and execute official government policies and strategies in foreign countries. The very nature of this supposition meansthat PMCs must operate under conditions that, at the least, require discretion andat the most, contingencies of secrecy. The premise that governments use commercial entities in the policy arena can be argued, in its own right, to indicate therequirement for obfuscation. This is not mere tautology. Providing incontrovertible proof in the most sensitive cases will only take place when “veils of secrecy”
have failed their designers and have been drawn aside. Outside of this, circumstantial evidence must suffice; while it may be insufficient to sway a court of law, it
can still be sufficient to prove an academic point or satisfy an intelligence analyst.
Two goals of U.S. policy in the former Yugoslavia were: first, to enable the
Croatian military to develop from a Warsaw Pact-style force into one suitable for
PfP participation through a Long Range Management and a Democracy Transition
Program;24 and second, to enhance the Bosnian military’s capabilities and to equipthem with U.S.-standard hardware in order to deter attack by Bosnian Serb forces– the Train and Equip program.25
In the case of Croatia, in 1994 U.S. forces had not yet been deployed intheater. In the case of Bosnia, U.S. participation in IFOR, and later SFOR, necessitated an impartial stance. Contracts to push the Croat military towards PfP and to
train and equip the Bosnian army went to the private sector, to a PMC – the American firm MPRI. MPRI are a Virginia- based company with offices in Alexandria,
not far from the Pentagon. The board and executive board are comprised of former
senior U.S. defense personnel. The company’s bread and butter corporate businessis inextricably interwoven into the Department of Defense’s domestic activity in
the U.S.: education and administration of the Reserve and Officer Training Corps,
equipment evaluation parameters, and so on.
While active in Croatia, there was intense, and to date unresolved speculationthat MPRI was involved in the planning, if not the execution, of the very successful
23

Reuters wire report. 5 December 1999.
UK House of Commons, Private Military Companies: Options for Regulation (London: The
Stationary Office, 2002), 13.
25
Military Stabilization in the Balkans Office, Fact Sheet Number 006-97, 24 June 1997.
24

114

N O .4, D ECEMBER 02

and ruthless expulsion of Serb forces from the Krajina known as Operation Storm.
The sophistication of the plan and the tactical speed and efficiency with which it
was enacted point to external participation, namely by MPRI.26 Defeat of Serb
forces in this engagement prompted the U.S. Ambassador to Croatia at the time
to comment, “the Bosnian Serb leadership might now recognize the new realities
and this might in fact be an opportunity to reach a negotiated settlement on a fairbasis.”27
The Train and Equip Program in Bosnia has involved up to two hundred former U.S. military personnel in a training capacity, and the supply of fifteen UH1H helicopters, 45 M60A3 main battle tanks, 840 AT-4 light anti-tank weapons,
116 howitzers, 46,100 M16 rifles, 1,000 M60 machine guns, communications andcomputing equipment from the U.S.; 50 AMX 30 tanks, 80 M113A2 APCs, 31
ML90 ARVs, 36 105mm towed howitzers from the United Arab Emirates; and 24
122mm towed howitzers from Egypt, among other sophisticated defense items.28
MPRI’s involvement in the former Yugoslavia unequivocally served as an effective human intelligence asset, and “a cost-effective, practical alternative for a U.S.
administration sensitive to casualties among its own forces . . . as a mechanism of
U.S. policy in the Balkans at less cost” and critically “at lower political risk” thanif regular U.S. forces had been utilized.
When Sandline International was contracted in 1997 by Kabbah’s Sierra
Leone government, the company diligently maintained a running dialogue with
the British Government’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), both inside
Sierra Leone, in the person of Peter Penfold, the High Commissioner (British
ambassador-status diplomats in former British Colonies are titled High Commissioners), and in London directly with the FCO’s Sierra Leone Desk Officer.29
When the government of Sierra Leone contracted with Sandline to supply $35
million worth of arms and ammunition, this was known to London. Sandline regarded their willingness to fulfill their contract as being in compliance with the
UN arms embargo because the end user was the legitimate government and not
a body external to the rule of law, and tacitly in accord with British foreign policy since at no stage did the FCO or the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)
intervene to block the deal. So, in effect, the situation represented a besieged legitimate government, in the absence of international support, turning to a PMC toprovide military aid that appeared, by their tacit acceptance of events, to be approved by the British Government – a PMC executing, however indirectly, official
government policy.
As part of the wider U.S. defense strategy of safeguarding oil interests in the
Middle East, companies like SAIC, BDM and its subsidiary, Vinnell, have been
26

UK House of Commons, Private Military Companies, 13.
Shearer, “Private Armies,” 58.
28
Military Stabilization in the Balkans Office, Fact Sheet Number 005-97, 19 June 1997.
29
Spicer, An Unorthodox Soldier, 195–207.
27

115

T HE Q UARTERLY J OURNAL

training elements of the Saudi armed forces. The latter’s twenty-five year contract
to train the Saudi National Guard has been worth $819 million.30 By using theprivate sector to pursue its policy objectives, the U.S. government has been able
to remain one step removed from potential criticism in the case of Saudi Arabia
over the issue of support for a harsh, autocratic regime. This has an added, but
potentially critical benefit: minimizing or even removing overt Western, and particularly U.S., government presence from countries like Saudi Arabia, where thefires of Islamic fundamentalism and anti-Western sentiment continue to smolder,and having the potentiality to reduce the catalyst for future ideologically-inspired
violence. The British government, for its part, gave its tacit support in 1993 to
KMS (a British PMC) to train Sri Lankan forces in their fight against the LTTE;
direct UK involvement in this savage civil war was not perceived to be in theinterests of the British government.31
Post-Conflict Roles
I now want to remain in the field of military matters, but move onto an arguably
less contentious but increasingly topical question. This question concerns peace
support operations (PSOs). I begin with two premises: first, the post-Cold Warexperience of PSOs is essentially one of failure; and second, PMCs genericallyhave proved that they can operate effectively and efficiently – they have the structure, infra-structure, and resources (financial, manpower, and materiel) to become
involved in conflict situations. I want to restrict my analysis to traditional PSOs,
by which I mean those led by the UN.
Why don’t UN PSOs succeed? Every one essentially is different, but there are
a number of identifiable common features. The UN is slow to organize and deploy in situations where dynamic and rapid action is required. They suffer frompoor force make-up. States whose forces may be able to contribute positively andeffectively are largely reluctant to commit them (the U.S. Weinberger Doctrine,
and the tenet of U.S. Presidential Decision Directive 25 of 1994).32 These states
will not risk sacrificing soldiers on the altar of voter sanction in arenas of limited national interest, and those states that may be less reluctant often bring withthem awkward baggage. Their troops may be ill trained, ill experienced, poorly
led, poorly motivated, poorly equipped, and poorly disciplined. They may rapidly
become, again, part of the problem and contribute little to the solution.
For their part, PMCs enjoy a number of distinct advantages. Until the UN
establishes some form of rapidly deployable forces, or as a minimum a rapidly
deployable headquarters element to fill that initial vacuum, UN PSOs will continue to deploy struggling against a strong counter current. PMCs are pre-existing
entities; they are responsive. Their force structures are already identified, and30

Sheppard, “Rise of the Corporate Military.”
Rogers, Someone Else’s War, 229.
32
Shearer, “Private Armies,” 33.
31

116

N O .4, D ECEMBER 02

their logistical and administrative processes are organized. They have a leadership cadre ready to deploy. This is their core business. They have personnel who are motivated to serve, who are experienced, who are trained, who arephysically equipped, and who are disciplined. Contrary to popular misgivings,
commercially-motivated forces will consistently conduct themselves more professionally, more in line with international codes of conduct, and will be primarily motivated by the desire to succeed. As business enterprises, PMCs can only
survive if their name and reputation is positive.
It may not be practical for PMCs to conduct a PSO on the scale of one needed
to manage the situation currently existing in the Democratic Republic of Congo,
for instance, but I would argue that they can achieve success in four areas. First,
in situations where the physical scale is more limited, such as Liberia or Sierra
Leone. Second, as a constituent part of a wider UN force which delegates specificfunctional responsibilities to a PMC, such as reconnaissance patrolling, helicopter
operations (in line with the PAE contract to operate helicopters in support of ECOMOG in Liberia in 1996),33 or geographic responsibility for an area with specific,
and perhaps more complex, military problems. Third, at the other end of the capability spectrum, they can be assigned to perform more routine tasks like clearanceof rear areas, static security tasks, repatriation of prisoners, all serving to free up
finite combat-capable resources. And lastly, they can be of particular use in situations where speed of initial deployment is essential. It is not unreasonable tosuggest that the UN, in the absence of its own standing army, could raise its own
commercially-recruited and led force; in the world of the PMC, this would becompletely compatible with operating norms. The contracting sovereign national
government would be replaced as paymaster and client by the sovereignty of all
the world’s nations. Could this work? Yes, I think it could, and I think that, at thevery least, serious and objective analysis of this concept should be undertaken asa priority.
Early Warning
States spend a massive combined annual budget on diplomatic and intelligencemissions abroad. For its part, the UN is not represented on the ground in every
region and state where the likelihood of conflict exists. The UN does not havean intelligence collection apparatus, and within most of its missions abroad it relies for information and security-related intelligence on a handful of invariably
under-manned and overworked offices (usually UNDP Security Officers). Individual states may collect intelligence and may make reasoned assessments, butwill not disseminate these or act if their interests are not served in so doing. The
problem of early warning – of comprehensive, broad, and disinterested threat identification – is serious if the international system is serious about conflict management. Here too the PMC can play a positive role and help equalize a vacuum,
33

Ibid., 35.

117

T HE Q UARTERLY J OURNAL

not in the piece-meal way that commercial agents currently conduct risk assessment and analysis, but within a larger, more coordinated framework. The exact
structure and lines of command, control, and communication require engineering,as do terms of reference and financial issues, but the skills and experience that
PMCs are able to put into the field could be ideal in identifying, quantifying, andreporting the early indicators and warnings of impending conflict. The international system can then exploit (or ignore) them at its will. With a responsive andcomprehensive system deployed in key regions and states, the international community, whether UN-led or not, can at least have no excuse to be caught unawares,
and can be given sufficient lead time to prepare an appropriate response strategy
where it deems action necessary.
A related issue could see the deployment of PMCs in an “Open Skies” program in the Third World, where tension is fuelled by unchecked arms races and by
the absence of the resources and commitment on the part of regional governments
to construct confidence-building measures. A carefully crafted regime operatingover the Indian subcontinent, for example, could do much to de-escalate the fearand suspicion that has for the past several years kept India and Pakistan on thebrink of disastrous all-out war. An international institution like the UN could create, manage, and finance such a regime; a PMC could execute it as one of its arms.
Such an approach would combine efficiency and effectiveness with transparency
and neutrality. As a tool, this resource could be expanded or be mobile enough to
be transferable to other theaters and situations.
Humanitarian Support
Early warning and reporting is a role for PMCs in advance of the eruption of armed
conflict; in addition, I have examined scenarios where PMCs can play a positive
function where conflict exists. They may also play their part in humanitarian andpost-conflict scenarios. The humanitarian “industry” has already privatized a largepart of the logistical support it requires as part of its operations. For its part, theU.S. government has out-sourced the delivery of its aid to the former Soviet Union
to MPRI.34 So why not extend this trend to include security-related roles?
In 1998, the number of civilian UN staff killed in the course of their duties
exceeded the number of deaths of blue-bereted soldiers engaged on UN peacekeeping duties.35 This is a symptom of both an upsurge in violence perpetrated
against relief workers and a testament to the danger in which they place themselves in the course of delivering aid. It may not be appropriate to use armed UN
or other peacekeepers to provide protection for these civilian staff; indeed, there
may be a complete absence of international peacekeeping troops on the ground.
Yet the most important function that “troops” can serve is guaranteeing access to34
35

See www.mpri.com.
“The Privatisation of Security: Framing a Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding Policy Agenda,”
Proceedings of the Wilton Park Conference 1999, International Alert, 13.

118

N O .4, D ECEMBER 02

locations where the inhabitants need help.36 PMCs could be ideally placed to facilitate such access and protection. Again, they offer a blend of military prowess,experience, and technical ability that international peacekeeping forces may not
be able to muster, and they could provide security in a more discreet, low-key, but
focused way. This may not be a relevant tactic in all theaters where aid has to bedelivered, and policy guidelines do not yet exist, but PMCs offer the chance ofa more flexible response in an arena where the international community can domuch good.
The Narcotics War
Few would contest the serious adverse impact of illegal hard, class-A drugs (cocaine, heroin, crack cocaine, LSD) on western society. Their consumption has implications for levels of domestic crime, economic output, for the health of users,
and weighs heavily on our collective psyche. There are three arenas in which thebattle against drugs can be fought. The first is at their source, where they are cultivated and produced; the second lies along their distribution routes; and the third
at the point at which the drugs reach the consumer on our streets.
The third arena is very much the bailiwick of domestic police and specialistanti-narcotics officers. Intercepting drugs in transit is complicated by issues ofsovereignty, states’ territorial waters, the laws of the sea, and practical problemsof drug routes crossing sovereign countries and borders, often remote and difficult
to police – a situation cursed by a surplus of sovereignty and a deficit of capability.
This is exacerbated by the vast sums of money involved in the drugs business thatmake corruption a very serious limiting factor in countering both their production
and distribution.
PMCs can play, and are playing, a positive role in this war against drugs.
They are currently doing this in Latin America, on the front line, at the point oforigin. The focus for this activity is primarily Colombia, where most cocaine on
the streets of the U.S. originates, along with Bolivia and Peru. The prime aim of
the U.S. government’s “Plan Colombia” is to halt this flow of narcotics, which isan integral dimension of the civil war in Colombia.37 The plan is funded to thetune of $1.3 billion, but the limit of direct involvement by U.S. military trainers
is capped at five hundred. The bulk of the executive output of the plan is beingout-sourced to PMCs. The maximum number of non-military personnel was fixedat three hundred, but this has been over-turned by the Andean Counter-drug Initiative.38 The former restriction effectively stems fears in Congress of the U.S. being
sucked into a Vietnam-like quagmire, reduces the risks of political fall-out and36

Mark Cutts, Lecture to International Training Course at Geneva Centre for Security Policy, 27
November 2002.
37
Juan Forero, “Role of U.S. Companies in Colombia Is Questioned,” The New York Times, 18
May 2001.
38
Julian Borger and Martin Hodgson, “US Proxy War on Drugs,” The Guardian, 2 June 2001.

119

T HE Q UARTERLY J OURNAL

accountability if casualties are suffered, and reduces the pain to the public purse,
since PMCs consistently operate more cheaply than government forces. The latterrelaxation of numbers was born of the view that an effective response in the antidrugs war will focus more on “counter-narcotics” than on “counter-insurgency.”39
The consequence is a $600m contract for DynCorp (a Virginia-based PMC),
overseen by the State Department’s Narcotic Affairs Section; their mission is tohelp eradicate drugs production. They are deploying crop dusting aircraft to spraycoca and poppy plants with glyphosate, and utility helicopters and OV-10 reconnaissance aircraft to protect the sprayers.40 They have between 50 and 170 operatives in the region, supporting 69 aircraft. Airscan and Aviation Development
Corporation (ADC) are conducting aerial reconnaissance to pinpoint areas of cultivation and to target aircraft used by smugglers to move narcotics onwards.41
For their part, MPRI is augmenting U.S. forces in training specialized Colombiananti-drugs forces.42
The operation in Colombia and its neighbors is possible because the national
governments sanction and support it. This is vital. In addition, the companies operating there are physically able to do so. In due course these conditions may be
applicable in other regions of the world where drug production is endemic, or
where transit routes head westwards towards Europe and North America. Where
and when this occurs, PMCs are likely to have a role to play.
The Future?
I want to end by taking a speculative look at how PMCs could evolve and develop, and into what areas of activity their presence could expand. This postulated evolution would represent a distinct divergence from the traditional military and military-related patterns outlined above, but it would be founded on thecore strengths that PMCs embody: their centralized and clearly defined command
structure; their discipline and adherence to standards, both legal and moral; theirpursuit of efficient and effective responses and solutions to tasks for which they
are contracted, underpinned by the guiding principle of the profit motive; andtheir consequent employment of tried and tested personnel with appropriate skills
and experience. These areas of activity are, and could be, the province for what
we understand to be NGOs. Here we again confront the issue of definition. But
why can PMCs not develop Janus-like, capitalizing on their strengths that enable
them to operate in arenas traditionally regarded as the hunting grounds of conventional NGOs? Cannot PMCs continue to issue their employees green and brownfatigues to accomplish their traditional military roles, but don green helmets and39Peter Beaumont, “Bush to Raise Private Army in Drugs War,” The Observer, 22 July 2001.
Jeremy Bigwood, “DynCorp in Colombia: Outsourcing the Drug War,” CorpWatch, 23 May
2001; Ignacio Gomez, “US Mercenaries in Colombia,” Colombia Report INOTA, 16 July 2000.
41
Borger and Hodgson, “US Proxy War on Drugs.”
42
See www.mpri.com.
40120

N O .4, D ECEMBER 02

even white coats to tackle a host of “soft” security, environmental, and health issues? As new members of the NGO community, PMCs would complement theactivities of established organizations, and may indeed be more effective. Areas
that they could then work in could span an almost limitless spectrum from more
conflict-related activities like mine clearance and child-combat repatriation services, to support for war crimes prosecution (augmenting the meager resources
devoted to former Yugoslavian and Rwandan war crimes investigations), to completely new fields where their profiles could be relevant. This might encompass
AIDS awareness training in Africa, where PMCs could work either under the
direction of the WHO or national governments; the administration of vaccination programs in developing nations along similar lines; through to environmental
and economic issues, some of which will impinge on security concerns, like themanagement of water, fisheries and forest resources. In contrast to other tasks traditionally taken on by PMCs, the management of these resources may address
the sources of future dispute and ultimately conflict. A supranational apparatus
will be best positioned to direct this PMC resource management to prevent thesecommercial bodies from becoming mere proxies of the contracting states, who
may wish to lay claim to the ownership of the resources during times of conflict.
This list is only as limited as the institutional imagination; the premise is that any
task requiring the skills that PMCs bring to the table can be tackled by a Private
Military Company.
Conclusion
There can be no debate that PMCs are active players on today’s political scene.
They owe their existence to the changing world that we have inherited after
decades of Cold War standoff. PMCs have taken to stages that states have been
increasingly reluctant to occupy. These stages have cast PMCs in the role of actorsof last resort in attempts by developing states to resolve conflict at home. Thesestates have not had the means or expertise to help themselves, and the outside
world has not been willing to commit manpower and resources where their direct interests no longer exist. For their part, PMCs have formed themselves to beable to react rapidly with effective forces and tactics to fill these vacuums. They
are not mercenaries and they are not irresponsible opportunists. They serve undercodes of conduct: their own as demanded by the laws of business and profit, andto ones no less strong – the laws of states, and those of war. The marketplace inwhich they operate is a unique and highly specialized one, and I will not for a moment contend that PMCs commit no ill, suffer no lack of judgment, and remain
blameless in everything they do. But what participant in conflict is blameless? Is
every domestic soldier in the uniform of his country blameless, consistently acting to the highest professional and moral standards? Of course not; the catalogueof conflict abounds with misdeed and atrocity. PMCs are simply less likely to act
out of malice and more likely to be concerned with maintaining a positive, pro121

T HE Q UARTERLY J OURNAL

fessional image. This image influences profits, and PMCs, after all, are businesses
like any other.
I believe that there can be little doubt that PMCs are here to stay in our politicalworld, and that the demand for private military services will in fact increase: “Itis British Government policy . . . to outsource certain tasks that in earlier days
would have been undertaken by the Armed Forces.”43 I base this premise on theflexibility that PMCs themselves are demonstrating. Traditional conflict resolution
activity will not cease, but PMCs are evolving to play a part in broader issues
where room remains for effective action to be taken. These new situations in “soft”
security and other areas, and those yet to be defined, fit perfectly into the skills
and organizational profiles of PMCs. PMCs themselves hold their futures in theirown hands. I contend that their record in more traditional fields is one of successand positive achievement. If this is maintained in these new fields of endeavor,
this positive evolution will continue.
A significant underscoring of the transformation and validity of the continued
existence of PMCs is the British government’s recent public about-face. Recent
statements by the British Foreign Secretary and the publishing of a Green (consultative) Paper represent a significant change in stance. The paper addresses a key
area that is currently deficient, namely the regulation and control of PMCs. Suchregimes are common in other areas of commercial life, and their refinement can
only benefit PMCs. If they highlight, marginalize, and ultimately exclude unprofessional organizations, then this can only bolster the legitimacy and acceptabilityof the PMC as a positive factor in the international system. Only this can at lastsilence the pointed, unreasonable, and wholly pejorative comparisons with mercenary activity that critics of private military activity expound.
What is required is effective regulation at the national and international level.
The UK Green Paper highlights the need for this to “set guidelines for the industry[to give companies] an indication of what was and was not expected of them bygovernment” and to “help establish a respectable and therefore more employableindustry.”44 A regulatory approach based solely on licensing is arguably not broador stringent enough to ensure the most important quality – full transparency. Whatis required is legislation that builds on the positive foundations of South Africa’s
1998 Regulation of Foreign Military Assistance Act, and the U.S. arms export
control system. The former regulates both the existence of the company in the first
instance, then each operation that it is contracted to undertake.45 This gives thegovernment in South Africa full oversight of every domestically-based PMC, andeach and every job they undertake. The U.S. arms export system awards licenses
after thorough investigation of a PMC’s activities is undertaken, and strictly pro43

UK House of Commons, Private Military Companies, 4.
Ibid.
45
Chaloka Beyani and Damian Lilly, “Regulating Private Military Companies – Options for the
UK Government,” International Alert (2001).
44

122

N O .4, D ECEMBER 02

hibits a PMC from engaging directly in combat, or providing training to a clientthat might lead to a lethal outcome. If these structures were pitched in parallel at
the international level, as part of a regime operated by the UN, regulation of thewilling would be achieved and exposure of the unwilling guaranteed. This would
deal effectively with the actors. What is also required is effective definition of the
traditional activities – those related directly to conflict – in which PMCs engage.
This calls for adoption and broadening of Article 47 of Part 1 of the Geneva Convention to include a definition of the purpose of PMC activity (as outlined in the
UK’s Diplock Report, and the OAU Convention for the Elimination of Mercenaries in Africa, 1977). Allied to this, a list of proscribed activities that PMCs cannot
engage in must be codified, and a list of activities for which PMCs must seek licensing before providing support for a client must be identified. An international
regulatory regime then requires a formed, funded body to operate a thorough andcomprehensive licensing system, with defined powers of sanction and punishment
for companies that break the rules. With these dual strands formalized, PMCs cancontinue to march forwards purposefully and positively as actors for good in themodern world.
References and further reading
Basu, Kajal. “Mercenaries Home in on bin Laden.” www.Tehelka.com, 17 October 2001.
Beaumont, Peter. “Bush to Raise Private Army in Drugs War.” The Observer, 22 July
2001.
Beyani, Chaloka and Lilly, Damian. “Regulating Private Military Companies – Options for the UK Government.” International Alert (2001).
Borger, Julian and Hodgson, Martin. “US Proxy War on Drugs.” The Guardian, 2June 2001.
Bigwood, Jeremy. “DynCorp in Colombia: Outsourcing the Drug War.” CorpWatch, 23
May 2001.
Brooks, Doug. “The Business End of Military Intelligence: Private Military Companies.” www.huachuca-usaic.mil, 20 July 1999.
Brooks, Doug. “Creating the Renaissance Peace: The Utilisation of PMCs in Africa.”
Africa Institute, 1 June 2000.
Brooks, Doug. “Why Mercenaries Matter in Africa.” Africa Analysis, 23 March 2001.
Burns, Jimmy and Parker, Andrew. “Ex-SAS Soldiers Hope for New Lease of Life.”
Financial Times, 14 February 2002.
Cutts, Mark. Lecture to International Training Course at Geneva Centre for Security
Policy. 27 November 2002.
Forero, Juan. “Role of US Companies in Colombia Is Questioned.” The New YorkTimes, 18 May 2001.

123

T HE Q UARTERLY J OURNAL
Gomez, Ignacio. “US Mercenaries in Colombia.” Colombia Report INOTA, 16 July
2000.
Grant, Col. Bruce. “US Military Expertise for Sale: Private Military Consultants as aTool of Foreign Policy.” Institute for National Strategic Studies, June 1998.
Hooper, Jim. “Peace in Sierra Leone: A Temporary Outcome.” Janes Intelligence Review 9:2 (1997).
Howe, Herb. “Global Order and Security Privatization.” Institute for National Strategic
Studies, May 1998.
Isenberg, David. “The New Mercenaries.” Christian Science Monitor, 31 October 1998.
Keegan, John. “Private Armies are a Far Cry From the Sixties Dogs of War.” The Daily
Telegraph, 13 May 1998.
Kiley, Sam. “Send in the Mercenaries, Mr Cook.” The Times (London), 22 January 1999.
Lewis, Paul. “It’s Not Just Governments that Make War and Peace Now.” The New YorkTimes, 28 November 1998.
Lilly, Damian. “From Mercenaries to Private Security Companies: Options for Future
Policy Research.” International Alert (1998).
Lilly, Damian. “The Privatisation of Security and Peacebuilding: a Framework for Action.” International Alert (2000).
Lynch, Colum. “Private Firms Aid UN on Sanctions.” The Washington Post, 21 April
2001.
“Mad Mike Comes in from the Cold.” The Economist, 16 February 2002.
Malan, Mark. “The Privatisation of Security and Peacekeeping in Africa.” Institute forStrategic Studies, 1997.
Military Stabilization in the Balkans Office. Fact Sheet Number 005-97(19 June 1997).
Military Stabilization in the Balkans Office. Fact Sheet Number 006-97 (24 June 1997).
Misser and Versi. “The Mercenary as Corporate Executive.” African Business (December 1997).
Mockler, Anthony. The New Mercenaries, The History of the Mercenary from the Congoto the Seychelles. London: Sidgwick and Jackson, 1985.
Myers, Kevin. “Mercenaries are Much Misunderstood Men.” Sunday Telegraph, 17
February 2002.
O’Brien, Kevin. “Leash the Dogs of War.” Financial Times, 20 February 2002.
Parker, Andrew; Guerra, Francesco; Mallet, Victor; and Hoyos, Carola. “Exsoldiers Find There is Money to be Made Out of Wars.” Financial Times, 17 April
2001.
Newman, Cathy. “UN to Hire Mercenaries for Policing Peace.” Financial Times, 12
February 2002.

124

N O .4, D ECEMBER 02
Norton-Taylor, Richard. “Let Mercenaries Be Licensed, says Foreign Office.” The
Guardian, 13 February 2002.
“PMCs.” Conference Report, RUSI (24 October 2001).
Rawnsley, Andrew. Servants of the People. London: Hamish Hamilton, 2000.
Rogers, Anthony. Someone Else’s War – Mercenaries from 1960 to the Present. London:
HarperCollins, 1998.
Shawcross, William. “A Bloody Continent, Racked by War and Disastrous Leadership.”
Sunday Times, 14 May 2000.
Schulhofer-Wohl, Jonah. “Should We Privatise Peacekeeping.” The Washington Post,
12 May 2000.
Shearer, David. “Private Armies and Military Intervention.” Adelphi Paper 316, Institutefor Security Studies, Oxford (1998).
Sheppard, Simon. “The Rise of the Corporate Military.” New Left Review (March/April
1998).
Singer, Peter. “Corporate Warriors.” International Security (January 2002).
Spearin, Christopher. “A Private Security Panacea.” Canadian Centre for Foreign Policy Development, 5 May 2000.
Spicer, Tim. An Unorthodox Soldier: Peace and War and the Sandline Affair. Edinburgh:
Mainstream Publishing, 2000.
Tickler, Peter. The Modern Mercenary, Dog of War, or Soldier of Honour? Wellingborough: Patrick Stephens, 1987.
UK House of Commons. Private Military Companies: Options for Regulation. London:
The Stationary Office, 2002.
UNHCR. “Report on the Question of the Use of Mercenaries as a Means of Violating
Human Rights of Peoples to Self-determination.” 1997.
Vest, Jason. “State Outsources Secret War.” The Nation, 4 March 2002.
Waugh, Paul and Morris, Nigel. “Mercenaries as Peacekeepers’ Plan Under Fire.” Independent, 14 February 2002.
Wilton Park Conference. “The Privatisation of Security: Framing a Conflict Prevention
and Peacebuilding Policy Agenda.” International Alert (1999).
Zagorin, Adam “Soldiers for Sale.” Time Magazine, 26 May 1997.

125